CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

To keep a high level of structural safety, durability and performance of the

infrastructure in each country, an efficient system for early and regular
structural assessment is urgently required. The quality assurance during
and after the construction of new structures and after reconstruction
processes and the characterisation of material properties and damage as a
function of time and environmental influences is more and more becoming
a serious concern.
Non-destructive testing (NDT) methods have a large potential to be part of
such a system. NDT methods in general are widely used in several industry
branches. Aircrafts, nuclear facilities, chemical plants, electronic devices
and other safety critical installations are tested regularly with fast and
reliable testing technologies. A variety of advanced NDT methods are
available for metallic or composite materials.
In recent years, innovative NDT methods, which can be used for the
assessment of existing structures, have become available for concrete
structures, but are still not established for regular inspections. Therefore,
the objective of this project is to study the applicability, performance,
availability, complexity and restrictions of NDT.
The purpose of establishing standard procedures for nondestructive testing
(NDT) of concrete structures is to qualify and quantify the material
properties of in-situ concrete without intrusively examining the material
properties. There are many techniques that are currently being research for
the NDT of materials today.
1.1 Background of the problem
Concrete structures as many other engineering structures are subjected to deterioration that
affect their integrity, stability and safety. Faced with the importance of the damages noted
on the structures, the current choices are directed towards the repair of the existing
structures rather than towards the demolition and construction of new ones. But before any
repair work being done, it is common practice to determine the causes of the deterioration
so that successful repair can be done. Many repair work fail because the exact causes of
the deterioration was not adequately identified.

1
This identification process comprises many methods including non-destructive testing
methods. Non-Destructive Testing is usually undertaken as part of the detailed
investigation to complement the other methods. Sometimes, the conclusions of the
investigation are based essentially on these tests.
First developed for steel, it has not been easy to transfer the NDT technology to the
[2].
inspection of concrete (Carino, 1994) Because of the characteristics of reinforced
concrete the non destructive testing (NDT) of concrete structures is more complex than the
[13]
NDT of metallic materials (Rhazi, 2001)

Since the spread of their application in civil engineering, one of their main disadvantages
lies in the processing and interpretation of the data, which is often not trivial (Colombo
[3]
and Forde, 2003) . In order for the NDT to better achieve its role in structural
assessment there must have agreed standards and guidelines on how to do the survey in
the field and interpret the data obtained Unfortunately until now the choice of the best-
fitted technique for a specific case is not simple, the relevance of the measurement process
not guaranteed, and the question of how to cope with measurement results and how to
[10]
finally assess the structural properties remains unanswered (Rilem, 2004)

1.2 Statement of the problem

The application of non-destructive testing to concrete structures is sometimes
disappointing. There are many NDT techniques, each based on different theoretical
principles, and producing as a result different sets of information regarding the physical
properties of the structure. These properties, such as velocities, electrical resistance and so
on, have to be interpreted in terms of the fabric of the structure and its engineering
properties.
The interpretation of the data is the most challenging task of the engineer assessing the
structure. The recommendations made based on the interpreted result can be very
significant. Decision on whether a structure is adequate or not, the standard and
specifications are respected or not, and the exact causes of the deterioration, depends on
the outcome of the data’s interpretation. It is neither desirable that they lead to the
condemnation of a structure safe or economically repairable building, nor it is admissible
that they provide a false sense of confidence in an otherwise unsafe structure.
Therefore it is vital to study the reliability in of the NDT results of concrete structures.
How NDT results are interpreted? What are the factors affecting these interpretations?

2
1.3 Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study are to:
• Investigate the reliability of Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) results of concrete
structures,
• Determine the factors affecting the interpretation of (NDT) results of concrete
structures.

1.4 Scope of the study

The present work focuses on the study of the reliability of non-destructive testing results
of concrete structures. It will be accomplished by comparing the tests done in laboratory
& the tests conducted on normal hardened concretes of A double storied building
having two halls viz., Hall No.1 and Hall no.2 in Community Hall Kang
Mai, District: Hoshiarpur; The study will be restricted to the compressive strength of
concrete.
1.5 Limitations of the study
This study will investigate neither human being role in the reliability of NDT nor will it
focus on how to improve the reliability of the NDT testing equipments.
It will be based on the assumptions that the testing equipments are adequate and the testing
operation done with respect to the procedure from the planning of the testing to the
recording of the data.

3
 CHAPTER-2
LITRATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this project work is to provide an introduction to commonly used NDT
methods for concrete. Emphasis is placed on the principles underlying the various
methods so as to understand their advantages and inherent limitations. Additional
[7-8]
information on the application of these methods is available in IS: 13311; Part-I & II

2.1 Historical Background

Some of the first methods to evaluate the in-place strength of concrete were adaptations of
the Brinell hardness test for metals, which involves pushing a high-strength steel ball into
the test piece under a given force and measuring the area of the indentation. In the metals
test, the load is applied by a hydraulic loading system. Modifications were required to use
this type of test on a concrete structure. In1934, Professor K. Gaede in Germany reported
on the use of a spring-driven impactor to supply the force to drive a steel ball into the
[6]
concrete (Malhotra, 1976) . A nonlinear, empirical relationship was obtained between
cube compressive strength and indentation diameter. In 1936, J.P. Williams in England
reported on a spring-loaded, pistol-shaped device in which a 4-mm ball was attached to a
[6]
plunger (Malhotra, 1976) . The spring was compressed by turning a screw, a trigger
released the compressed spring, and the plunger was propelled toward the concrete. The
diameter of the indentation produced by the ball was measured with a magnifying glass
and scale. In 1938, a landmark paper by D.G. Skramtajev, of the Central Institute for
Industrial Building Research in Moscow, summarized 14 different techniques for
estimating the in-place strength of concrete, 10 of which were developed in the Soviet
[4]
Union (D.G. Skramtajev, 1938) .

2.2 Recent Developments:

In 1995, B. Haselwander reported, safety, serviceability & due proportion in the three
[1]
goals of building construction . The safety must not be neglected & NDT can make a
significant contribution to evaluating building safety. To achieve the second goal i.e.

4
serviceability NDT can play an important role in quality assurance. The third goal i.e. due
proportion or beauty does not have NDT does not have same significance.

In 2003, Michael P. Schullar, reported that Recent advances in nondestructive technology

have led to mainstream use of several methods for evaluating the strength of the structure
[11]
. Nondestructive approaches such as Rebound Hardness, stress wave transmission,
impact echo, surface penetrating radar, tomography imaging & infrared thermograph are
useful for qualitative condition survey as well as identification of internal features such as
voids or areas of distress .In-situ test methods are also available for determination of
engineering properties.Standardised methods exists for many of the evaluation approaches
& efforts are ongoing for further improve the quality of NDT testing.

In 2003, J. Mat conducted Nondestructive assessment of the actual compressive strength

of concrete, through an experimental program , involving destructive and nondestructive
[10]
applied to different concrete mixes .He established relationships for pulse velocity,
rebound hammer ,pullout test, probe penetration . The results shows good behavior for
some methods, like pulse velocity, rebound hammer. The relationships for various
methods were compared in terms of dimensionless sensitivity, for different strength levels.
The results showed decreasing sensitivity with increasing strength.

In 2004, P. Turgut, in his Research developed the correlation between concrete strength
[12]
and UPV values , the most appropriate curve is found and shown depending on the
correlation between the curve obtained from existing reinforced structures and the curve
obtained from studies on laboratory originated specimens. Depending on these curves the
best fit formula is found as:

1.03v
Sn=0.3161e n

With the formula Sn = 0.3161e1.03Vn, obtained with the correlation of earlier researches'
findings and this study's findings, approximate value of compressive strength in any point
of concrete can be practically found with ignoring the mixture ratio of concrete through
using only longitudinal velocity variable (Vn).

In 2007, Shibli R. M. Khan, established correlation between UPV tests and destructive
tests, and presented them in the form of regression equations that display standard errors

5
 [15]
between ± 3.2 to 6.7 Mpa . The proposed relationships can be used for concrete
strength estimation that is normally required in building or structural assessment,
especially with the present trend of constructing modern structures with high performance
concrete.

In 2009, Ehsan Moshtagh and Ali Massumi reported Seismic assessment can be achieved
[3]
by NDT tests . He proposed two methods viz. forced vibration method and ambient
vibration method for seismic assessment of existing buildings, which is the first step
towards rehabilitation of constructions.

In 2009, Jeffrey Wouters in his paper “Applications of Impact-Echo for Flaw Detection”,
reported that .Impact-echo testing has been highly successful in locating and evaluating
[9]
numerous types of flaws in concrete and masonry structures . He suggested that a
thorough understanding of the actual testing parameters and variables will result in more
accurate and successful flaw detection.

6
 CHAPTER-3
TESTS AND METHODOLGY

The quality of new concrete structures is dependent on many factors such

as type of cement, type of aggregates, water cement ratio, curing,
environmental conditions etc. Besides this, the control exercised during
construction also contributes a lot to achieve the desired quality. The
present system of checking slump and testing cubes, to assess the strength
of concrete, in structure under construction, are not sufficient as the actual
strength of the structure depend on many other factors such as proper
compaction, effective curing also.
Considering the above requirements, need of testing of hardened concrete
in new structures as well as old structures, is there to assess the actual
condition of structures. Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) techniques can be
used effectively for investigation and evaluating the actual condition of the
structures. These techniques are relatively quick, easy to use, and cheap
and give a general indication of the required property of the concrete. This
approach will enable us to find suspected zones, thereby reducing the time
and cost of examining a large mass of concrete. The choice of a particular
NDT method depends upon the property of concrete to be observed such as
strength, corrosion, crack monitoring etc.
The subsequent testing of structure will largely depend upon the result of
preliminary testing done with the appropriate NDT technique.
The NDT being fast, easy to use at site and relatively less expensive can be
used for
(i) Testing any number of points and locations
(ii) Assessing the structure for various distressed conditions
(iii) Assessing damage due to fire, chemical attack, impact, age etc.
(iv)Detecting cracks, voids, fractures, honeycombs and weak
locations
(v) Assessing the actual condition of reinforcement

7
Many of NDT methods used for concrete testing have their origin to the
testing of more homogeneous, metallic system. These methods have a
sound scientific basis, but heterogeneity of concrete makes interpretation
of results somewhat difficult. There could be many parameters such as
materials, mix, workmanship and environment, which influence the result
of measurements.
Moreover the test measures some other property of concrete (e.g. hardness)
yet the results are interpreted to assess the different property of the
concrete e.g. (strength). Thus, interpretation of the result is very important
and a difficult job where generalization is not possible. Even though
operators can carry out the test but interpretation of results must be left to
experts having experience and knowledge of application of such
nondestructive tests.
Variety of NDT methods have been developed and are available for
investigation and evaluation of different parameters related to strength,
durability and overall quality of concrete. Each method has some strength
and some weakness. Therefore prudent approach would be to use more than
one method in combination so that the strength of one compensates the
weakness of the other. The various NDT methods for testing concrete
bridges are listed below –
A. For strength estimation of concrete
(i) Rebound hammer test
(ii) Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Tester
(iii) Combined use of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity tester and
rebound hammer test
(iv) Pull off test
(v) Pull out test
(vi) Break off test
B. For assessment of corrosion condition of reinforcement and to determine
reinforcement diameter and cover
(i) Half cell potentiometer
(ii) Resistively meter test
(iii) Test for carbonation of concrete
(iv) Test for chloride content of concrete
(v) Profometer

8
 (vi) Micro covermeter
C. For detection of cracks/voids/ delaminating etc.
(i) Infrared thermo graphic technique
(ii) Acoustic Emission techniques
(iii) Short Pulse Radar methods
(iv) Stress wave propagation methods
• pulse echo method
• impact echo method
• response method
3.1 NDE Methods in Practice
Visual inspection : The first stage in the evaluation of a concrete
structure is to study the condition of concrete, to note any defects in the
concrete, to note the presence of cracking and the cracking type (crack
width, depth, spacing, density), the presence of rust marks on the surface,
the presence of voids and the presence of apparently poorly compacted
areas etc. Visual assessment determines whether or not to proceed with
detailed investigation.
The Surface hardness method : This is based on the principle that the
strength of concrete is proportional to its surface hardness. The calibration
chart is valid for a particular type of cement, aggregates used, moisture
content, and the age of the specimen.
The penetration technique: This is basically a hardness test, which
provides a quick means of determining the relative strength of the
concrete. The results of the test are influenced by surface smoothness of
concrete and the type and hardness of the aggregate used. Again, the
calibration chart is valid for a particular type of cement, aggregates used,
moisture content, and age of the specimen. The test may cause damage to
the specimen which needs to be repaired.
The pull-out test: A pullout test involves casting the enlarged end of a
steel rod after setting of concrete, to be tested and then measuring the
force required to pull it out. The test measures the direct shear strength of
concrete. This in turn is correlated with the compressive strength; thus a
measurement of the in-place compressive strength is made. The test may
cause damage to the specimen which needs to be repaired.

9
Ultra-sonic pulse velocity test: This test involves measuring the
velocity of sound through concrete for strength determination. Since,
concrete is a multi-phase material, speed of sound in concrete depends on
the relative concentration of its constituent materials, degree of
compacting, moisture content, and the amount of discontinuities present.
This technique is applied for measurements of composition (e.g. monitor
the mixing materials during construction, to estimate the depth of damage
caused by fire), strength estimation, homogeneity, elastic modulus and age,
& to check presence of defects, crack depth and thickness measurement.
Generally, high pulse velocity readings in concrete are indicative of
concrete of good quality. The drawback is that this test requires large and
expensive transducers. In addition, ultrasonic waves cannot be induced at
right angles to the surface; hence, they cannot detect transverse cracks.

3.2 Introduction to NDE Methods

Concrete technologists practice NDE methods for
(a) Concrete strength determination
(b) Concrete damage detection

3.2(a) Strength determination by NDE methods:

Strength determination of concrete is important because its elastic behavior
& service behavior can be predicted from its strength characteristics. The
conventional NDE methods typically measure certain properties of concrete
from which an estimate of its strength and other characteristics can be
made. Hence, they do not directly give the absolute values of strength.
i) The rebound hammer test : The Schmidt rebound hammer is
basically a surface hardness test with little apparent theoretical
relationship between the strength of concrete and the rebound number of
the hammer. Rebound hammers test the surface hardness of concrete, which
cannot be converted directly to compressive strength. The method basically
measures the modulus of elasticity of the near surface concrete. The
principle is based on the absorption of part of the stored elastic energy of
the spring through plastic deformation of the rock surface and the
mechanical waves propagating through the stone while the remaining
elastic energy causes the actual rebound of the hammer. The distance

10
travelled by the mass, expressed as a percentage of the initial extension of
the spring, is called the Rebound number. There is a considerable amount
of scatter in rebound numbers because of the heterogeneous nature of near
surface properties (principally due to near-surface aggregate particles).
There are several factors other than concrete strength that influence
rebound hammer test results, including surface smoothness and finish,
moisture content, coarse aggregate type, and the presence of carbonation.
Although rebound hammers can be used to estimate concrete strength, the
rebound numbers must be correlated with the compressive strength of
molded specimens or cores taken from the structure.

Rebound Hammer (Schmidt Hammer)

FIG.3.1 REBOUND HAMMER

This is a simple, handy tool, which can be used to provide a convenient
and rapid indication of the compressive strength of concrete. It consists of
a spring controlled mass that slides on a plunger within a tubular housing.
The schematic diagram showing various parts of a rebound hammer is
given as Fig.3.1

The rebound hammer method could be used for –

• Assessing the likely compressive strength of concrete with the help
of suitable co-relations between rebound index and compressive
strength.
• Assessing the uniformity of concrete

11
 • Assessing the quality of concrete in relation to standard
requirements.
• Assessing the quality of one element of concrete in relation to
another.
This method can be used with greater confidence for differentiating
between the questionable and acceptable parts of the test is classified as a
hardness test and is based on the principle that the rebound of an elastic
mass depends on the hardness of the surface against which the mass
impinges. The energy absorbed by the concrete is related to its strength.
Despite its apparent simplicity, the rebound hammer test involves complex
problems of impact and the associated stress-wave propagation.
There is no unique relation between hardness and strength of concrete but
experimental data relationships can be obtained from a given concrete.
However, this relationship is dependent upon factors affecting the concrete
surface such as degree of saturation, carbonation, temperature, surface
preparation and location, and type of surface finish. The result is also
affected by type of aggregate, mix proportions, hammer type, and hammer
inclination. Areas exhibiting honeycombing, scaling, rough texture, or high
porosity must be avoided. Concrete must be approximately of the same age,
moisture conditions and same degree of carbonation (note that carbonated
surfaces yield higher rebound values). It is clear then that the rebound
number reflects only the surface of concrete. The results obtained are only
representative of the outer concrete layer with a thickness of 30–50 mm.

12
 • Principle:
The method is based on the principle that the rebound of an elastic mass
depends on the hardness of the surface against which mass strikes. When
the plunger of rebound hammer is pressed against the surface of the
concrete, the spring controlled mass rebounds and the extent of such
rebound depends upon the surface hardness of concrete. The surface
hardness and therefore the rebound are taken to be related to the
compressive strength of the concrete. The rebound value is read off along a
graduated scale and is designated as the rebound number or rebound index.
The compressive strength may be read directly from the graph provided on
the body of the hammer.
The impact energy required for rebound hammer for different applications
is given below –

Table 3.1 Impact Energy of Rebound Hammers

PRECAUTIONS DURING TESTING

Before commencement of a test, the rebound hammer should be tested
against the test anvil, to get reliable results. The testing anvil should be of
steel having Brinell hardness number of about 5000 N/mm 2 . The
supplier/manufacturer of the rebound hammer should indicate the range of
readings on the anvil suitable for different types of rebound hammer.

13
For taking a measurement, the hammer should be held at right angles to the
surface of the structure. The test thus can be conducted horizontally on
vertical surface and vertically upwards or downwards on horizontal
surfaces
(Fig. 3.2 shows various positions of Rebound Hammer)

If the
situation so demands, the hammer can be held at intermediate angles also,
but in each case, the rebound number will be different for the same
concrete.

The following precautions should be observed during testing –

• The surface should be smooth, clean and dry
• The loosely adhering scale should be rubbed off with a grinding
wheel or stone, before testing
• The test should not be conducted on rough surfaces resulting from
incomplete compaction, loss of grout, spalled or tooled surfaces.
• The point of impact should be at least 20mm away from edge or
shape discontinuity.

14
ii) Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Tester
Ultrasonic instrument is a handy, battery operated and portable instrument
used for assessing elastic properties or concrete quality. The apparatus for
ultrasonic pulse velocity measurement consists of the following (Fig.3.3) –
(a) Electrical pulse generator
(b) Transducer – one pair
(c) Amplifier
(d) Electronic timing device

FIG. 3.3 USPV TESTER

• Objective:
The ultrasonic pulse velocity method could be used to establish:
(a) The homogeneity of the concrete
(b) The presence of cracks, voids and other imperfections
(c) Change in the structure of the concrete which may occur with time
(d) The quality of concrete in relation to standard requirement (e) The
quality of one element of concrete in relation to another
(f) The values of dynamic elastic modulus of the concrete
• Principle

15
The method is based on the principle that the velocity of an ultrasonic
pulse through any material depends upon the density, modulus of elasticity
and Poisson’s ratio of the material. Comparatively higher velocity is
obtained when concrete quality is good in terms of density, uniformity,
homogeneity etc. The ultrasonic pulse is generated by an electro acoustical
transducer. When the pulse is induced into the concrete from a transducer,
it undergoes multiple reflections at the boundaries of the different material
phases within the concrete. A complex system of stress waves is developed
which includes longitudinal (compression), shear (transverse) and surface
(Reyleigh) waves. The receiving transducer detects the onset of
longitudinal waves which is the fastest. The velocity of the pulses is
almost independent of the geometry of the material through which they
pass and depends only on its elastic properties. Pulse velocity method is a
convenient technique for investigating structural concrete. For good
quality concrete pulse velocity will be higher and for poor quality it will
be less. If there is a crack, void or flaw inside the concrete which comes in
the way of transmission of the pulses, the pulse strength is attenuated and
it passed around the discontinuity, thereby making the path length longer.
Consequently, lower velocities are obtained. The actual pulse velocity
obtained depends primarily upon the materials and mix proportions of
concrete. Density and modulus of elasticity of aggregate also significantly
affects the pulse velocity. Any suitable type of transducer operating within
the frequency range of 20 KHz to 150 KHz may be used. Piezoelectric and
magneto-stricture types of transducers may be used and the latter being
more suitable for the lower part of the frequency range.
The electronic timing device should be capable of measuring the time
interval elapsing between the onset of a pulse generated at the transmitting
transducer and onset of its arrival at receiving transducer. Two forms of
the electronic timing apparatus are possible, one of which use a cathode
ray tube on which the leading edge of the pulse is displayed in relation to
the suitable time scale, the other uses an interval timer with a direct
reading digital display. If both the forms of timing apparatus are available,
the interpretation of results becomes more reliable.
The ultrasonic pulse velocity has been used on concrete for more than 60
years. Powers in 1938 and Obert in 1939 were the first to develop and

16
extensively use the resonance frequency method. Since then, ultrasonic
techniques have been used for the measurements of the various properties
of concrete. Also, many international committees, specifications and
standards adopted the ultrasonic pulse velocity methods for evaluation of
concrete. The principle of the test is that the velocity of sound in a solid
material, V, is a function of the square root of the ratio of its modulus of
elasticity, E, to its density, d, as given by the following equation:

Where, g is the gravity acceleration. As noted in the previous equation, the

velocity is dependent on the modulus of elasticity of concrete. Monitoring
modulus of elasticity for concrete through results of pulse velocity is not
normally recommended because concrete does not fulfill the physical
requirements for the validity of the equation (2) normally used for
calculations for homogenous, isotropic and elastic materials

Where V is the wave velocity, ρ is the density, μ is Poisson's ratio and Ed

is the dynamic modulus of elasticity. On the other hand, it has been shown
that the strength of concrete and its modulus of elasticity are related.
The method starts with the determination of the time required for a pulse
of vibrations at an ultrasonic frequency to travel through concrete. Once
the velocity is determined, an idea about quality, uniformity, condition and
strength of the concrete tested can be attained. In the test, the time the
pulses take to travel through concrete is recorded. Then, the velocity is
calculated as:
V = L/ T

17
Where V=pulse velocity, L=travel length in meters and T=effective time in
seconds, which is the measured time minus the zero time correction.
From the literature review, it can be concluded that the ultrasonic pulse
velocity results can be used to:
(a) Check the uniformity of concrete,
(b) Detect cracking and voids inside concrete,
(c) Control the quality of concrete and concrete products by comparing
results to a similarly made concrete,
(d) Detect condition and deterioration of concrete,
(e) Detect the depth of a surface crack and
(f) Determine the strength if previous data is available.
• Factors influencing pulse velocity measurement
The pulse velocity depends on the properties of the concrete under test.
Various factors which can influence pulse velocity and its correlation with
various physical properties of concrete are as under:
• Moisture Content:
The moisture content has chemical and physical effects on the pulse
velocity. These effects are important to establish the correlation for the
estimation of concrete strength. There may be significant difference in
pulse velocity between a properly cured standard cube and a structural
element made from the same concrete. This difference is due to the effect
of different curing conditions and presence of free water in the voids. It is
important that these effects are carefully considered when estimating
strength.

• Temperature of Concrete:
No significant changes in pulse velocity, in strength or elastic properties
occur due to variations of the concrete temperature between 5° C and 30°
C. Corrections to pulse velocity measurements should be made for
temperatures outside this range, as given in table 3.2 below:

18
 • Path Length:
The path length (the distance between two transducers) should be long
enough not to be significantly influenced by the heterogeneous nature of
the concrete. It is recommended that the minimum path length should be
100mm for concrete with 20mm or less nominal maximum size of aggregate
and 150mm for concrete with 20mm and 40mm nominal maximum size of
aggregate. The pulse velocity is not generally influenced by changes in
path length, although the electronic timing apparatus may indicate a
tendency for slight reduction in velocity with increased path length. This is
because the higher frequency components of the pulse are attenuated more
than the lower frequency components and the shapes of the onset of the
pulses becomes more rounded with increased distance travelled. This
apparent reduction in velocity is usually small and well within the
tolerance of time measurement accuracy.
• Effect of Reinforcing Bars:
The pulse velocity in reinforced concrete in vicinity of rebars is usually
higher than in plain concrete of the same composition because the pulse
velocity in steel is almost twice to that in plain concrete. The apparent
increase depends upon the proximity of measurement to rebars, their
numbers, diameter and their orientation. Whenever possible, measurement
should be made in such a way that steel does not lie in or closed to the
direct path between the transducers. If the same is not possible, necessary
corrections needs to be applied. The correction factors for this purpose are
enumerated in different codes.
• Shape and Size of Specimen:
The velocity of pulses of vibrations is independent of the size and shape of
specimen, unless its least lateral dimension is less than a certain minimum
value. Below this value, the pulse velocity may be reduced appreciably.

19
The extent of this reduction depends mainly on the ratio of the wavelength
of the pulse vibrations to the least lateral dimension of the specimen but it
is insignificant if the ratio is less than unity. Table given below shows the
relationship between the pulse velocity in the concrete, the transducer
frequency and the minimum permissible lateral dimension of the specimen.

Table: 3.3 Effect of specimen dimension on pulse transmission.

The use of the ultrasonic pulse velocity tester is introduced as a tool to
monitor basic initial cracking of concrete structures and hence to introduce
a threshold limit for possible failure of the structures. Experiments using
ultrasonic pulse velocity tester have been carried out, under laboratory
conditions, on various concrete specimens loaded in compression up to
failure. Special plots, showing the relation between the velocity through
concrete and the stress during loading, have been introduced. Also, stress–
strain measurements have been carried out in order to obtain the
corresponding strains. Results showed that severe cracking occurred at a
stress level of about 85% of the rupture load. The average velocity at this
critical limit was about 94% of the initial velocity and the corresponding
strain was in the range of 0.0015 to 0.0021. The sum of the crack widths
has been estimated using special relations and measurements. This value
that corresponds to the 94% relative velocity was between 5.2 and 6.8 mm.

Procedure of using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Tester

The equipment should be calibrated before starting the observation and at
the end of test to ensure accuracy of the measurement and performance of
the equipment. It is done by measuring transit time on a standard
calibration rod supplied along with the equipment. A platform/staging of
suitable height should be erected to have an access to the measuring
locations. The location of measurement should be marked and numbered

20
with chalk or similar thing prior to actual measurement (pre decided
locations).
• Mounting of Transducers
The direction in which the maximum energy is propagated is normally at
right angles to the face of the transmitting transducer, it is also possible to
detect pulses which have traveled through the concrete in some other
direction. The receiving transducer detects the arrival of component of the
pulse which arrives earliest. This is generally the leading edge of the
longitudinal vibration. It is possible, therefore, to make measurements of
pulse velocity by placing the two transducers in the following manners
(Fig.3.4)

Fig. 3.4 Various Methods of USPV Testing

(
a)

Direct Transmission (on opposite faces) –

This arrangement is the most preferred arrangement in which transducers
are kept directly opposite to each other on opposite faces of the concrete.
The transfer of energy between transducers is maximum in this
arrangement. The accuracy of velocity determination is governed by the
accuracy of the path length measurement. Utmost care should be taken for
accurate measurement of the same. The coolant used should be spread as
thinly as possible to avoid any end effects resulting from the different
velocities of pulse in coolant and concrete.
(b) Semi-direct Transmission:

21
This arrangement is used when it is not possible to have direct
transmission (may be due to limited access). It is less sensitive as
compared to direct transmission arrangement. There may be some reduction
in the accuracy of path length measurement, still it is found to be
sufficiently accurate. This arrangement is otherwise similar to direct
transmission.
(c) Indirect or Surface Transmission:
Indirect transmission should be used when only one face of the concrete is
accessible (when other two arrangements are not possible). It is the least
sensitive out of the three arrangements. For a given path length, the
receiving transducer get signal of only about 2% or 3% of amplitude that
produced by direct transmission. Furthermore, this arrangement gives pulse
velocity measurements which are usually influenced by the surface
concrete which is often having different composition from that below
surface concrete. Therefore, the test results may not be correct
representative of whole mass of concrete. The indirect velocity is
invariably lower than the direct velocity on the same concrete element.
This difference may vary from 5% to 20% depending on the quality of the
concrete. Wherever practicable, site measurements should be made to
determine this difference. There should be adequate acoustical coupling
between concrete and the face of each transducer to ensure that the
ultrasonic pulses generated at the transmitting transducer should be able to
pass into the concrete and detected by the receiving transducer with
minimum losses. It is important to ensure that the layer of smoothing
medium should be as thin as possible. Coolant like petroleum jelly, grease,
soft soap and kaolin/glycerol paste are used as a coupling medium between
transducer and concrete. Special transducers have been developed which
impart or pick up the pulse through integral probes having 6mm diameter
tips. A receiving transducer with a hemispherical tip has been found to be
very successful. Other transducer configurations have also been developed
to deal with special circumstances. It should be noted that a zero
adjustment will almost certainly be required when special transducers are
used. Most of the concrete surfaces are sufficiently smooth. Uneven or
rough surfaces should be smoothened using carborundum stone before
placing of transducers. Alternatively, a smoothing medium such as quick

22
setting epoxy resin or plaster can also be used, but good adhesion between
concrete surface and smoothing medium has to be ensured so that the pulse
is propagated with minimum losses into the concrete. Transducers are then
pressed against the concrete surface and held manually. It is important that
only a very thin layer of coupling medium separates the surface of the
concrete from its contacting transducer. The distance between the
measuring points should be accurately measured. Repeated readings of the
transit time should be observed until a minimum value is obtained.
Once the ultrasonic pulse impinges on the surface of the material, the
maximum energy is propagated at right angle to the face of the transmitting
transducers and best results are, therefore, obtained when the receiving
transducer is placed on the opposite face of the concrete member known as
Direct Transmission. The pulse velocity can be measured by Direct
Transmission, Semi-direct Transmission and Indirect or Surface
Transmission. Normally, Direct Transmission is preferred being more
reliable and standardized. (Various codes give correlation between
concrete quality and pulse velocity for Direct Transmission only). The size
of aggregates influences the pulse velocity measurement. The minimum
path length should be 100mm for concrete in which the nominal maximum
size of aggregate is 20mm or less and 150mm for aggregate size between
20mm and 40mm. Reinforcement, if present, should be avoided during
pulse velocity measurements, because the pulse velocity in the reinforcing
bars is usually higher than in plain concrete. This is because the pulse
velocity in steel is 1.9 times of that in concrete. In certain conditions, the
first pulse to arrive at the receiving transducer travels partly in concrete
and partly in steel. The apparent increase in pulse velocity depends upon
the proximity of the measurements to the reinforcing bars, the diameter and
number of bars and their orientation with respect to the path of
propagation. It is reported that the influence of reinforcement is generally
small if the bar runs in the direction right angle to the pulse path for bar
diameter less than12 mm. But if percentage of steel is quite high or the
axis of the bars are parallel to direction of propagation, then the correction
factor has to be applied to the measured values.

23
The zero time correction is equal to the travel time between the
transmitting and receiving transducers when they are pressed firmly
together.
• Determination of pulse velocity
A pulse of longitudinal vibration is produced by an electro acoustical
transducer, which is held in contact with one surface of the concrete
member under test. After traversing a known path length (L) in the
concrete, the pulse of vibration is converted into an electrical signal by a
second electro-acoustical transducer and electronic timing circuit enable
the transit time (T) of the pulse to be measured. The pulse velocity (V) is
given by V = L / T
Where, V = Pulse velocity, L = Path length, T = Time taken by the pulse to
traverse the path length

Fig.3.5 testing of a beam by USPV Tester

The ultrasonic pulse velocity results can be used:
• To check the uniformity of concrete,
• To detect cracking and voids inside concrete,
• To control the quality of concrete and concrete products by
• comparing results to a similarly made concrete,
• To detect the condition and deterioration of concrete,

24
 • To detect the depth of a surface crack, and,
• To determine the strength if previous data are available.

iii) Combined use of Rebound hammer and Ultrasonic Pulse

Velocity Method
In view of the relative limitations of either of the two methods for
predicting the strength of concrete, both ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)
and rebound hammer methods are sometimes used in combination to
alleviate the errors arising out of influence of materials, mix and
environmental parameters on the respective measurements. Relationship
between UPV, rebound hammer and compressive strength of concrete are
available based on laboratory test specimen. Better accuracy on the
estimation of concrete strength is achieved by use of such combined
methods. However, this approach also has the limitation that the
established correlations are valid only for materials and mix having same
proportion as used in the trials. The intrinsic difference between the
laboratory test specimen and in-situ concrete (e.g. surface texture,
moisture content, presence of reinforcement, etc.) also affect the accuracy
of test results.
Combination of UPV and rebound hammer methods can be used for the
assessment of the quality and likely compressive strength of in-situ
concrete. Assessment of likely compressive strength of concrete is made
from the rebound indices and this is taken to be indicative of the entire
mass only when the overall quality of concrete judged by the UPV is
‘good’. When the quality assessed is ‘medium’, the estimation of
compressive strength by rebound indices is extended to the entire mass
only on the basis of other collateral measurement e.g. strength of
controlled cube specimen, cement content of hardened concrete by
chemical analysis or concrete core testing. When the quality of concrete is
‘poor’, no assessment of the strength of concrete is made from rebound
indices.

25
iii) Acoustic emission technique: This technique utilizes the elastic
waves generated by plastic deformations, moving dislocations, etc. for the
analysis and detection of structural defects.
However, there can be multiple travel paths available from the source to
the sensors. Also, electrical interference or other mechanical noises
hampers the quality of the emission signals.
iv) Impact echo test: In this technique, a stress pulse is introduced at
the surface of the structure, and as the pulse propagates through the
structure, it is reflected by cracks and dislocations.
Through the analysis of the reflected waves, the locations of the defects
can be estimated. The main drawback of this technique is that it is
insensitive to small sized cracks

3.2(b) Damage detection by NDE methods:

Global techniques: These techniques rely on global structural response for
damage identification. Their main drawback is that since they rely on
global response, they are not sensitive to localized damages. Thus, it is
possible that some damages which may be present at various locations
remain un-noticed.
Local techniques: These techniques employ localized structural analysis,
for damage detection. Their main drawback is that accessories like probes
and fixtures are required to be physically carried around the test structure
for data recording. Thus, it no longer remains autonomous application of
the technique. These techniques are often applied at few selected locations,
by the instincts/experience of the engineer coupled with visual inspection.
Hence, randomness creeps into the resulting data.

26
 CHAPTER-4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 CALIBRATION TESTS

PROCEDURE:
The procedure that was followed during experiments consisted of the
following steps:
1. Various concrete mixes were used to prepare standard cubes of 150-mm
side length.
2. Concrete cubes of unknown history made under site conditions were also
brought from various sites for testing.
3. All cubes were immersed under water for a minimum period of 24 hr.
before testing.
4. Just before testing, the cubes were rubbed with a clean dry cloth in order
to obtain a saturated surface dry sample.
5. Once drying was complete, each of the two opposite faces of the cube
was prepared for the rebound hammer test as described in the
specifications.
6. The cubes were positioned in the testing machine and a slight load was
applied. The rebound number was obtained by taking three measurements
on each of the four faces of the cube. The rebound hammer was horizontal
in all measurements.
7. Once the rebound hammer test was complete, each of the two surfaces
was prepared for the ultrasonic pulse velocity test as described in the
specifications. Care was taken so that there was no effect of the notches
produced by the hammer. The time was measured on each of the two
opposing surfaces and the average was recorded.
8. Once nondestructive testing on each cube was completed, the cube was
loaded to failure and the maximum load was recorded.
9. Results were plotted as shown in Figures.

27
4.2 REBOUND HAMMER TEST

The operation of rebound hammer is shown in the fig.4.1. When the plunger of rebound
hammer is pressed against the surface of concrete, a spring controlled mass with a constant
energy is made to hit concrete surface to rebound back. The extent of rebound, which is a
measure of surface hardness, is measured on a graduated scale. This measured value is
designated as Rebound Number (rebound index). A concrete with low strength and low
stiffness will absorb more energy to yield in a lower rebound value.

FIG. 4.1 OPERATION OF REBOUND HAMMER

• PREPARATION OF SPECIMEN:
6 cubes were cast, targeting at different mean strengths. Further, the cubes
were cured for different number of days to ensure availability of a wide
range of compressive strength attained by these cubes. Size of each cube
was 150×150×150 mm.

• TESTING OF SPECIMEN:
10 readings (rebound numbers) were obtained for each cube, at
different locations on the surface of the specimen.

28
The cube was divided into grid blocks of equal spacing and 10 points were
marked at equal intervals for taking the Rebound Hammer test.
a) The cubes were then given a load of 7 N/mm^2 (as specified by the IS
CODE 13311) in the Compression Testing Machine and the Rebound
Values were obtained.
b) The Predicted Compressive Strength as predicted by the Rebound
Hammer was calculated from the chart given on Rebound Hammer

FIG. 4.2 CHART FOR CALCULATING. PREDICTED

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FROM REBOUND
NUMBER GIVEN ON REBOUND HAMMER

c) Average of rebound numbers and standard deviations were calculated using

Equations 1 and 2 respectively as:

Where “fa” is the average of rebound numbers, “fi” is the rebound number,
And “n” is the total impact number and “S” is the standard deviation.

29
TEST IS CONSIDERED RELIABLE IF THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF TEN
READINGS IS NOT MORE THAN THE FOLLOWING:
REBOUND VALUE 15 30 45
STANDARD DEVIATION 2.5 3.0 3.5

d) The cubes were then loaded up to their ultimate stress and the Breaking
Load was obtained.

Table 4.1 Rebound Number & Comparative Hardness

Fig.4.3 Components of a Rebound Hammer used in the Project

30
 Fig.4.4 Rebound Hammer Testing of a Specimen

The following tables lists the Rebound numbers (rebound index), Mean
Rebound Value, Standard Deviation, the Dead Load on the specimen at the
time of testing, the Breaking Load, the Predicted Compressive Strength as
predicted by the Rebound Hammer and the actual Compressive Strength as
obtained by the Compression Testing Machine.
SAMPLE NO. 1
S.No. R.No. Mean 22.3
1 19 S.D 1.49
2 25
3 23
4 22
5 23
6 22 = 150 KN
7 22
8 22 Dead Load
9 23 Breaking load = 247 KN
10 22 f(ck) N/mm^2 14.2 N/mm^2

31
(Predicted)
f(ck) N/mm^2 11.0 N/mm^2
(Actual)

32
 Table No. 4.2 a

SAMPLE NO. 2
S.No. R.No. Mean 19.7
1 19 S.D 0.94
2 20
3 19
= 150 KN
4 20
5 19 Dead Load
6 20 Breaking load = 311.5 KN
7 19 f(ck) N/mm^2 13.2
8 20 (Predicted) N/mm^2
9 19 f(ck) N/mm^2 13.8
10 22
(Actual) N/mm^2

Table No. 4.2 b

33
SAMPLE NO. 3
S.No. R.No.
1 24
2 25
3 26
4 26
5 26
6 25
7 25
8 24
9 25
10 25
Mean 25.1
S.D 0.73

= 150 KN
Dead Load
Breaking load = 346.5 KN
f(ck) N/mm^2 18.8 N/mm^2
(Predicted)
f(ck) N/mm^2 15.3 N/mm^2
(Actual)

34
 Table No. 4.2 c
SAMPLE NO. 4
S.No. R.No. Table 4.2(d)
1 42
2 42
3 41

4 42
5 42
6 42 = 150 KN
7 43 Dead Load
8 43 Breaking load = 830 KN
9 42 f(ck) N/mm^2 42.6 N/mm^2
10 42 (Predicted)
Mean 42.2 f(ck) N/mm^2 36.88 N/mm^2
S.D 0.63 (Actual)

35
SAMPLE NO. 5
S. No. R. No.
1 36
2 37
3 37
4 39
5 40
6 40 = 150 KN
7 41 Dead Load
8 40 Breaking load = 710 KN
9 40 f(ck) N/mm^2 36.2 N/mm^2
10 41
Mean 39.1 (Predicted)
S.D 1.79 f(ck) N/mm^2 31.5 N/mm^2
(Actual)
Table No. 4.2 e
SAMPLE NO. 5
S.No. R.No.
1 38
2 38
3 37
4 37
5 38
6 38
7 37
8 37
9 38
10 38
Mean 37.6
S.D 0516

= 150 KN
Dead Load
Breaking load = 760 KN
f(ck) N/mm^2 39.7
(Predicted) N/mm^2
f(ck) N/mm^2 33.8
(Actual) N/mm^2

36
 Table No. 4.2 f
The following graph is obtained between the Predicted Compressive Strength by the
Rebound Hammer and the Actual Compressive Strength:

Fig. 4.5 Calibration Graph for Rebound Hammer with its Equation

4.3 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

• PREPARATION OF SPECIMEN
9 cubes were cast, targeting at different mean strengths. Further, the
cubes were cured for different number of days to ensure availability of a
wide range of compressive strength attained by these cubes. Size of each
cube was 150×150×150 mm.

37
 • TESTING OF SPECIMEN:
3 readings of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (USPV) were obtained for each
cube.
The cubes were then given a load of 7 N/mm 2 (as specified by the IS
CODE 13311) in the Compression Testing Machine and the USPV were
obtained.
The cubes were then loaded up to their ultimate stress and the Breaking
Load was obtained.
The following table lists the USPV in each specimen with their mean
velocity, the Dead Load, the Breaking Load and the actual Compressive
Strength as obtained by the Compression Testing Machine.

Fig.4.6 Zeroing of the Transducers

38
Fig.4.7 USPV Tester used in the Project

Fig. 4.8 Compression Testing of a Specimen

39
OBSERVATIONS
S. V1 V2 V3 V Breakin f (ck)
No. g N/mm 2

m/sec m/sec m/sec m/sec IR LOAD (Actual)

LOAD

1 2825 2916 2913 2884.6 150 562.5 25

2 3350 3585 3218 3384 150 669.8 29.77
3 3625 3632 3218 3491 150 720 32
4 4219 4213 4007 4146 150 841.5 37.4
5 4411 4444 4117 4324 150 875.2 38.9
6 4625 4525 4417 4522 150 893.2 39.7
Table 4.3 USPV Testing Results
The following graph is obtained between the Compressive Strength and
the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity:

Fig. 4.9 Graph obtained for USPV Testing

This graph can now also be used to approximately predict the
Compressive Strength of Concrete.
Although it gives fairly approximate results but it should be verified with
some other tests like the Rebound Hammer test.
The quality of concrete in terms of uniformity can be assessed using the
guidelines given in table below:

40
S. No. Pulse Velocity by Cross Probing Concrete Quality
in Grading
m/s
1 Above 4500 Excellent
2 Btween3500-4500 Good
3 Between3000-3500 Medium
4 Below 3000 Doubtful
Table 4.5 USPV Criterion for Concrete Quality Grading

4.4 Study of Effect of Reinforcement on the Rebound Values and Pulse

Velocities
To Study the effect of reinforcement on the Rebound Values and the
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocities:
a) Two Beams were cast of the following dimensions:
Length = 1.8 m Breadth = .2 m Depth = .25 m
b) Grade of Concrete Used: M20 and M25
c) The points where the reinforcements existed were known so the
testing was done in two stages :
• By avoiding the impact of reinforcements or by trying to minimize its impact.
• By undertaking the effect of reinforcements or by maximizing its Impact.

A comparative analysis is then made to know the effect of

Reinforcement on the tests

OBSERVATIONS
Grade of concrete used: M 20
Rebound No. Ultra Sonic Pulse Velocity

41
 With Reinforcement

With Reinforcement
Without Reinforcement

Without Reinforcement
S.
No.

1st end 29 30 2861 3155

Quarter Length 28 29 2941 3053
Mid Span 30 31 2991 3075
¾ Length 28 29 2800 2908
2 n d Length 29 29 2925 3224
Table No.4.6 (a) Testing of Beam (M20) for effect of Reinforcement
Grade of concrete used: M 25
Rebound No. Ultra Sonic Pulse Velocity
Without Reinforcement

With Reinforcement

Without Reinforcement

With Reinforcement
S.
No.

1st end 36 36 3161 3688

Quarter Length 36 37 3141 3374
Mid Span 35 37 3191 3488
¾ Length 39 41 3322 3778
2 n d Length 39 39 3257 3722

Table No.4.6 (b) Testing of Beam (M25) for effect of Reinforcement

The maximum variation obtained for Rebound Hammer is 3.6%, where as

in case of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity the maximum variation is 16.1%.
Therefore variations are well within tolerable limits.

42
4.5 TESTING OF HALL NO. 1 AND HALL NO. 2

Tests were conducted on some of the Columns, Beams and Slabs of Hall
No. 1 and Hall No. 2 for the assessment of their quality. The
observations, results and discussions have been tabulated below:

Fig4.10 community hall at Village: Kang Mal, District: Hoshiarpur

43
4.5 (a) TESTING OF COLUMNS
HALL NO.1
COLUMN NO.1
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
28 Testing was done
BOTTOM 29 28.67 3313 22.5 over the plaster.
29 Medium quality
concrete
13 Void between
MIDDLE 14 13.67 Over 13.4 plaster & column
14 Range face indicated by a
peculiar sound when
struck softly by iron
rod
15 Void between
TOP 15 15.33 Over 14.1 plaster & column
15 Range face indicated by a
peculiar sound when
struck softly by iron
rod
TABLE NO.4.7

44
 HALL NO.1
COLUMN NO.2
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
32 Good Quality
BOTTOM 33 32.67 3754 31.3 concrete
33
30 Good Quality
MIDDLE 32 30.67 3531 30.1 concrete
30
31 Good Quality
TOP 31 30.67 3255 30.1 concrete
30
TABLE NO.4.8
HALL NO.1
COLUMN NO.3
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
36 Good Quality
BOTTOM 36 36 3744 33.9 concrete
36
34 Good Quality
MIDDLE 35 34.67 3825 33 concrete
35
33 Good Quality
TOP 34 34 3614 32.8 concrete
35
TABLE NO.4.9
In hall no.2, columns are made of brick masonry so this test is not
applicable here

4.5 (b) TESTING OF BEAMS

45
 HALL NO.1
BEAM NO.1
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
40 Good Quality
1ST 40 39 4468 39.9 concrete
SUPPORT 37
32 Medium Quality
MID 32 32.67 3455 29.9 concrete
SPAN 34
34 Medium Quality
2ND 34 34.33 3480 30.8 concrete
SUPPORT 35
TABLE NO.4.10
HALL NO.1
BEAM NO.2
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
33 Good Quality
1ST 35 33.33 3655 30.5 concrete
SUPPORT 32
34 Good Quality
MID 35 35 3845 31.6 concrete
SPAN 36
34 Good Quality
2ND 37 35 3440 31.6 concrete
SUPPORT 34
TABLE NO.4.11

46
 HALL NO.1
BEAM NO.3
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
43 Good Quality
1ST 39 39.33 4505 35.5 concrete
SUPPORT 36
38 Excellent Quality
MID 45 40 4533 36.1 concrete. Proper
SPAN 37 compaction may be
the reason
45 Excellent Quality
2ND 49 46.33 4861 41.2 concrete. It is the
SUPPORT 45 junction of three beams
& a column so heavy
reinforcement &
compaction is indicated
TABLE NO.4.12

47
 HALL NO.2
BEAM NO.1
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
26 Doubtful Quality
1ST 28 27 2620 20.3 Requires Attention
SUPPORT 27
25 Doubtful Quality
MID 27 26.33 2729 20 Requires Attention
SPAN 27
29 Doubtful Quality
2ND 28 27 2645 20.3 Requires Attention
SUPPORT 24
TABLE NO.4.13
HALL NO.2
BEAM NO.2
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
31 Medium Quality
1ST 31 32 2620 29.8 concrete
SUPPORT 34
33 Medium Quality
MID 32 32.33 2729 29.8 concrete
SPAN 32
35 Good Quality
2ND 34 35.33 2645 31.1 concrete
SUPPORT 37
TABLE NO.4.14
HALL NO.2

BEAM NO.3

48
 Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
28 USPV is low, there is
1ST 28 28.33 1955 23.8 separation of plaster
SUPPORT 29 from the beam or
internal voids &
Cracks .Requires
Attention
30 Medium Quality
MID 32 30.67 3233 25.1 concrete
SPAN 30
29 Medium Quality
2ND 33 31 3534 25.3 concrete
SUPPORT 31
TABLE NO.4.15

49
4.5 (C) TESTING OF SLABS

Hall No.1
Observations were taken on the top roof slab i.e. 2 n d floor roof slab
because the G.F. & F.F. do not have exposed surface due to application
of tiles. The 2 n d floor roof slab has been plastered to protect it from rain,
sun & others extreme conditions & to give a smooth finish.

SLAB BETWEEN A-B

Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
38 Good quality concrete
EDGES 39 38.67 4257 34.3
39
MID 36 Good Quality
SPAN 35 35.67 3966 32.7 concrete
ALONG 35
EDGES
CENTRE 34 Good Quality
OF SLAB 34 34 3850 31.8 concrete
34
TABLE NO.4.16

50
 HALL NO.1
SLAB BETWEEN D-E
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
33 High USPV may be
EDGES 30 30.33 4122 26.2 due to heavy torsion
28 steel. Overall good
quality concrete
MID 32 31.33 Good Quality
SPAN 31 3890 27.2 concrete
ALONG 31
EDGES
CENTRE 29 Little low may be due
OF SLAB 30 29.67 2855 25.0 to improper shuttering
30 of slabs & improper
compaction
TABLE NO.4.17

51
 HALL NO.1
SLAB BETWEEN E-F
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
30 Good quality concrete
EDGES 33 29.67 4005 26.4
28
MID 28 Good Quality
SPAN 28 27.33 3825 25.6 concrete
ALONG 27
EDGES
CENTRE 30 Good Quality
OF SLAB 29 28.67 3988 26 concrete
27
TABLE NO.4.18
HALL NO.2 (On 1 s t floor slab)
SLAB BETWEEN 3-4
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
47 Excellent quality
EDGES 45 45.33 5710 47.9 concrete
44
MID 49 Excellent Quality
SPAN 48 47 5764 49.3 concrete
ALONG 44
EDGES
CENTRE 53 Excellent Quality
OF SLAB 51 50.67 6229 52.6 concrete
48
TABLE NO.4.19

52
 HALL NO.2
SLAB BETWEEN 4-5
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
47 Excellent quality
EDGES 42 44.33 5612 47.8 concrete
44
MID 58 Excellent Quality
SPAN 47 51 5562 52.4 concrete
ALONG 58
EDGES
CENTRE 38 Excellent Quality
OF SLAB 36 38 4079 40.5 concrete
40
TABLE NO.4.20
HALL NO.2
SLAB BETWEEN 5-6
Rebound Mean USPV Quality Remarks
Value m/s fck
N/mm 2
45 Excellent quality
EDGES 46 47 5846 51.9 concrete
50
MID 45 Excellent Quality
SPAN 45 45.67 5760 49.1 concrete
ALONG 47
EDGES
CENTRE 42 Excellent Quality
OF SLAB 39 38 4832 39.5 concrete
33
TABLE NO.4.21

53
Fig No. 4.11 Rebound Hammer Testing of a Column in Hall No.1

Fig No. 4.12 Rebound Hammer Testing of a Slab in Hall No.1

54
Fig No. 4.13 USPV Testing of a Column in Hall No.1

55
4.6 Interpretation of Results
From the above discussion following interpretation can be made:
4.6.1 IN CASE OF REBOUND HAMMER:

1. After obtaining the correlation between compressive strength and

rebound number, the strength of structure can be assessed.
2. In general, the rebound number increases as the strength increases.
3. Rebound Number is affected by a number of parameters i.e. type
of cement, type of aggregate, surface condition and moisture
content of the concrete, curing and age of concrete, carbonation of
concrete surface etc.
4. The rebound index is indicative of compressive strength of
concrete up to a limited depth from the surface. The internal
cracks, flaws etc. or heterogeneity across the cross section will not
be indicated by rebound numbers.
5. The estimation of strength of concrete by rebound hammer method
cannot be held to be very accurate and probable accuracy of
prediction of concrete strength in a structure is ± 25 percent.
6. If the relationship between rebound index and compressive strength
can be found by tests on core samples obtained from the structure
or standard specimens made with the same concrete materials and
mix proportion, then the accuracy of results and confidence thereon
gets greatly increased.
7. The Rebound hammers showed erratic result when the compressive
strength was below 15 N/mm 2 . Above 15 N/mm 2 the predicted
compressive strength varied almost linearly with the actual
compressive strength.

56
4.6.2 IN CASE OF ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY
TESTER:
1. The ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete can be related to its
density and modulus of elasticity.
2. It depends upon the materials and mix proportions used in making
concrete as well as the method of placing, compacting and curing
of concrete.
3. If the concrete is not compacted thoroughly and having
segregation, cracks or flaws, the pulse velocity will be lower as
compare to good concrete, although the same materials and mix
proportions are used.
4. The actual value of the pulse velocity in concrete depends on a
number of parameters, so the criterion for assessing the quality of
concrete on the basis of pulse velocity is valid to the general
extent.
5. The assessment of quality becomes more meaningful and reliable,
when tests are conducted on different parts of the structure, which
have been built at the same time with similar materials,
construction practices and supervision and subsequently compared.
6. The quality of concrete is usually specified in terms of strength
and it is therefore, sometimes helpful to use ultrasonic pulse
velocity measurements to give an estimate of strength.
7. The relationship between ultrasonic pulse velocity and strength is
affected by a number of factors including age, curing conditions,
moisture condition, mix proportions, type of aggregate and type of
cement.
8. The assessment of compressive strength of concrete from ultrasonic
pulse velocity values is not accurate because the correlation
between ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive strength of
concrete is not very clear. Because there are large number of
parameters involved, which influence the pulse velocity and
compressive strength of concrete to different extents. However, if
details of material and mix proportions adopted in the particular

57
 structure are available, then estimate of concrete strength can be
made by establishing suitable correlation between the pulse
velocity and the compressive strength of concrete specimens made
with such material and mix proportions, under environmental
conditions similar to that in the structure.
9. The estimated strength may vary from the actual strength by ± 20
percent.
10. The correlation obtained for a particular grade may not be
applicable for concrete of another grade or made with different
types of material.
11. At some places over plaster in rounded columns USPV gave
no results or indicated that the velocity was out of range. In such a
place the rebound value was also very low. This place gave a
unique sound on striking softly with a hard material like iron which
clearly indicated a void between the concrete of pillar and its
plastering.
4.6.3 GENERAL TRENDS IN COLUMNS AND BEAMS:
A general trend was obtained in the columns. The trend was such that
towards the base of the column the tests always showed a higher quality
of concrete i.e., higher compressive strength. The compressive strength
goes on decreasing as we go up towards the roof

Fig No. 4.14 Variation of Strength with increase in Height of Column

A graph has been plotted with increasing height against the predicted
compressive strength. It is evident from the graph that the compressive
strength goes on decreasing with increase in height of column.

58
The reason for this variation is better compaction at the base. Since all
the weight of the column acts at the base higher compaction is achieved
and also better compaction facilities are available near the base and
process compaction becomes difficult as we go up.
No such regular trend was observed for beams or slabs.

59
 CHAPTER-5
CONCLUSION

Considerable engineering judgment is needed to properly evaluate a

measurement. Misinterpretation is possible when poor contact is made.
For example, in some cases it may not be possible to identify severely
corroded reinforcing bar in poor quality concrete. However, it is possible
to identify poor quality concrete which could be the cause of reinforcing
bar problems. The poor quality concrete allows the ingress of moisture
and oxygen to the reinforcing bars, and hence corrosion occurs. Presently
the system is limited to penetration depths of 300 mm. Research is
ongoing to develop a system that can penetrate to a depth of 3000mm or
more.
When variation in properties of concrete affect the test results,
(especially in opposite directions), the use of one method alone would
not be sufficient to study and evaluate the required property. Therefore,
the use of more than one method yields more reliable results.
For example, the increase in moisture content of concrete increases the
ultrasonic pulse velocity but decreases the rebound number.
Hence, using both methods together will reduce the errors produced by
using one method alone to evaluate concrete. Attempts have been done to
correlate rebound number and ultrasonic pulse velocity to concrete
strength. Unfortunately, the equation requires previous knowledge of
concrete constituents in order to obtain reliable and predictable results.
The Schmidt hammer provides an inexpensive, simple and quick method
of obtaining an indication of concrete strength, but accuracy of ±15 to
±20 per cent is possible only for specimens cast cured and tested under
conditions for which calibration curves have been established. The
results are affected by factors such as smoothness of surface, size and
shape of specimen, moisture condition of the concrete, type of cement
and coarse aggregate, and extent of carbonation of surface.
The pulse velocity method is an ideal tool for establishing whether
concrete is uniform. It can be used on both existing structures and those
under construction. Usually, if large differences in pulse velocity are
found within a structure for no apparent reason, there is strong reason to
presume that defective or deteriorated concrete is present. Fairly good
correlation can be obtained between cube compressive strength and pulse
velocity. These relations enable the strength of structural concrete to be
predicted within ±20 per cent, provided the types of aggregate and mix
proportions are constant.
In summary, ultrasonic pulse velocity tests have a great potential for
concrete control, particularly for establishing uniformity and detecting
60
cracks or defects. Its use for predicting strength is much more limited,
owing to the large number of variables affecting the relation between
strength and pulse velocity.
The deviation between actual results and predicted results may be
attributed to the fact that samples from existing structures are cores and
the crushing compressive cube strength was obtained by using various
corrections introduced in the specifications. Also, measurements were not
accurate and representative when compared to the cubes used to construct
the plots. The use of the combined methods produces results that lie close
to the true values when compared with other methods. The method can be
extended to test existing structures by taking direct measurements on
concrete elements.
Unlike other work, the research ended with two simple charts that require
no previous knowledge of the constituents of the tested concrete. The
method presented is simple, quick, reliable, and covers wide ranges of
concrete strengths. The method can be easily applied to concrete
specimens as well as existing concrete structures. The final results were
compared with previous ones from literature and also with actual results
obtained from samples extracted from existing structures.
5.1 Recommendations’
Since the advantages of the nondestructive testing are its rapidity and non destructivity,
priority should be given to develop correlation relationship by laboratory specimens. For
future work, emphasis should be put on establishing correlation relationship on
specimens cured and vibrated in different conditions. Different mixes targeting the same
strength should also be considered.
As the age of the specimens has a major influence on the nondestructive parameters,
relationships should be developed to relate reading on samples of different ages.

61
 REFERENCES
1. B. Haselvader , “Non Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering from
Contractor’s point of view” in “International symposium in Non Destructive
Concrete in Civil engineering ” 26-28.08.1995 ,pp(1-3)
2. Carino N.J. (1994), Non Destructive testing of concrete , History &
Challenges ,(pp13-17)
3. Colombo ,S. Forde (2003), Alternative method of AE Data processing (pp17-
21)
4. “Estimating in situ strength of concrete” D.G. Skramtajev of central
institute of Industrial Building Research, Mascow, 1938, (pp 37-69)
5. Ehsan Mohtagh and Ali Massumi “Seismic Assessment of R.C. buildings by
estimation of effective parameters on seismic behavior using non destructive
testing” in “structural design of tall buildings” Vol.5-Dec.2009,(pp 789-793)
6. Handbook on Non Destructive Testing of Concrete” (second edition),1976
by V.M. Malhotra and N.J. Carino (pp119-126)
7. IS: 13311, (Part-1)-1992, Non Destructive testing of concrete –methods of
test, Ultra Sonic Pulse Velocity.
8. IS:13311, ( Part-2)-1992, Non Destructive testing of concrete –methods of
test Rebound Hammer
9. Jeffery Wouter “Application of Impact Echo for flaw detection” “Civil
Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Hashemite University,
Zarqa 13115, Jordan (pp 39-43)
10. J. Mat , “Non Destructive testing for assessment of compressive strength of
High Compressive Concrete” in civil engineering journal vol.15,issue sept.-
oct. 2003,vol.15,(pp 452-459)
11. Micheal P. Schullar PE, “Non-destructive testing and demerge assessment
of structures ´in Progress of Structural engineering and materials, vol.5,
issue 4(pp239-251), December 2003.
12. P. Turget “Non-destructive testing of concrete material properties and
concrete structures” Christiane Maierhofer Federal Institute for Materials
Research and Testing (BAM), D-12205,Aug.2004, (pp 117-126)

62
13. Rhaji,J.(2001), N.D.T in civil engineering , the case of concrete bridge
decks(pp87-89)
14. Rilem (2004), Interpretation of NDT Results & assessment and assessment
of R.C.C. structures(pp89-95)
15. Shabli R. M. Khan “ UPV methods for strength detection of High
performance concrete” in structural survey ,vol.25, aug.2007,(pp25-27)

63